What the Wilders Trial Means
The trial of Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been altogether an extraordinary event. He is accused of saying rude and even hateful things about Islam, the prophet Mohammed, and the Koran — and people are not supposed to talk like that, in public at least. The case against him appears to be coming undone: Prosecutors have requested that the charges be dropped, but the final decision remains in the hands of the court.
A great deal turns on the outcome of this case, for the Netherlands, for Europe, and — not least — for the Muslim world.
Free speech is indispensable in a free society, and many a great man has fought for that principle, some of them going to prison for it. It is a longstanding if hard-won principle in the West that Wilders has a fundamental right to make whatever comment he likes about Islam, its prophet, or its scriptures, and so do all of us. To the extent that Dutch law contradicts that principle, it contradicts what is best in Europe’s heritage.
Furthermore, Wilders is an elected parliamentarian, leader of the third-largest party in his country. Public figures not only have a right to speak out, but a duty.
Wilders compares Islam to Nazism, a provocative stance, to be sure. But how should such provocative criticism be received? With open debate, or with the criminalization of opinion? It is extremely pertinent in the Wilders case to ask whether his trial means that Europe’s commitment to freedom is already dead.
Along with free speech, many a great man has also fought for the principle of the separation of powers, whereby issues are decided in the legislature, and courts are there only to ensure the proper application of the law. In the case of Wilders, the judiciary has flirted with imposing political decisions that are quite outside its powers. This is the road to antidemocratic show trials arranged to gag or eliminate anyone whom authority condemns as an enemy of the people.
The Wilders trial has also to be seen in the international context. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) purports to represent, and speak for, all Muslim countries. This body is now campaigning in various forums, including the United Nations, to criminalize all criticism of Islam. Any such privileging of Islam would block all possibility of reform and condemn Muslims to perpetual intellectual stagnation. Freedom of expression for Wilders also means freedom of expression for Muslims.
It is retrograde and shameful that a Dutch court should now be aligned with the OIC in the business of making criticism of Islam punishable by law. And highly dangerous, too.
(This editorial originally appeared on National Review Online)
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: What the Wilders Trial Means
Islamists and Lefties agree: if you can't refute the message, destroy the messenger. In Europe, a non-Muslim quoting the Koran is charged with inciting hatred and must be silenced. Imams and believers, on the other hand, can say and do the most outrageous things, the establishment sees nothing, does nothing. In the US, a Supreme Court Justice suggests that globalization may change the way the First Amendment is interpreted and that burning a book, not any book, of course, only a book of a certain privileged group, is tantamount to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. So it's not clear that it is only a Dutch court that may be aligned with the OIC.
The outcome of the Geert Wilders trial will show whether Europe is willing to counteract the Islamist strategy of grand jihad, "sabotaging their miserable house by their own hands so that Allah's religion is made victorious" or just roll over and play dead. In the US, the yard stick is the Ground Zero Mosque.
Edited on Oct 18, 2010 at 11:14amAug '10
Re: What the Wilders Trial Means
I recall how long and painful was my recovery from the malady of Western self-loathing subsequent to my exposure to Leftist college professors. Europe and America must go through this. A catastrophe, unfortunately, usually intervenes before a natural healing occurs or sanity supersedes. The travesties of justice and the dismantling of rationality that characterizes this suicidal affliction will excite into action those desiring the destruction of the West. This will not be pretty, but so committed is the Left to its premises, that the logical processes into which they feed those premises--and the conclusions that issue there from--will be defended with obstinate defiance. The only correction acceptable to the zealously wrong must come from far outside their rigid system of thought. That has always meant, in historical terms, that it will not be accomplished peacefully. I shudder. The spring is winding ever tighter with every new absurdity in which Western rulers and institutions compulsively engage.
Edited on Oct 18, 2010 at 2:54pmAug '10
Re: What the Wilders Trial Means
Might I respectfully suggest to my Ricochet friends that the very small number of comments on this important issue is symptomatic of a certain lack of interest in international affairs? I often look to the USA to see where Europe will be in 5 years time,but that can work both ways.
Jul '10
Re: What the Wilders Trial Means
I think it has more to do with the fact that it's an NRO editorial, Charles. First, an NRO editorial is usually going to be conservative red-meat friendly enough that the vast majority of members will agree with it.
Second, and more importantly, as Trace pointed out (and others seconded) we all know that the NRO editors aren't likely to respond to any critiques.
That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, but if NRO is going to send editorials this way controversial ones would generate more responses.